Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan Versus Valsartan in Women Compared With Men With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction
Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men.
In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes.
Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84–1.25) in men (P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men.
As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding.
Clinical Trial Registration:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711.
What Is New?
Women represent approximately a quarter of people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and more than half of those with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.
There are multiple effective drug and device therapies for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but none approved for heart failure and preserved ejection fraction; thus, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men.
In the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), sex and left ventricular ejection fraction appeared to modify the effect of sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome (total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death), with a more favorable treatment effect in women than in men (rate ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59–0.90] in women; 1.03 [95% CI, 0.84–1.25] in men; P interaction = 0.017).
What Are the Clinical Implications?
Whereas the apparent sex-related modification of the effect of sacubitril-valsartan has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding.
Our findings raise the possibility that the effects of pharmacologic treatments for heart failure and preserved ejection fraction may differ between men and women.
This hypothesis should be investigated further, given the therapeutic deficit in this heart failure phenotype in general and particularly in women.
Editorial, see p 362
Healthy women, on average, have higher a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) than men and the pattern of left ventricular remodeling seen in response to increased afterload and with aging differs between women and men.1–6 Among patients with heart failure (HF), women are less likely than men to have a markedly reduced LVEF (ie, ≤40%).1–6 Whereas women represent approximately a quarter of people with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), they account for over half of those with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).1–6 Although there are multiple effective drug and device therapies for HFrEF, there are none with regulatory approval for the treatment of HFpEF and guidelines largely focus on management of hypertension and volume overload and treatment of concomitant comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation.7,8 In addition, the 2017 update of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America guidelines gave a Class IIb Level B-R recommendation for an aldosterone receptor antagonist in selected patients with HFpEF.8 For this and other reasons, there is a greater HF therapeutic deficit in women compared with men.1,5,6
In the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), the effects of sacubitril-valsartan were compared with those of valsartan, and the primary outcome was a composite of HF hospitalization (first and repeat) and cardiovascular death.9–11 Among the 4796 participants analyzed (52% women), there were fewer primary endpoints in the sacubitril-valsartan group compared with the valsartan group, although the difference was of borderline statistical significance (894 versus 1009 primary events; rate ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.75–1.01]; P=0.059). In the PARAGON-HF trial, there were 12 prespecified subgroup analyses.11 Of these, only sex and LVEF appeared to modify the effect of sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan on the primary composite outcome, with a more favorable treatment effect in women than in men. In view of the potential importance of this finding, we defined, in detail, the differences between women and men in the PARAGON-HF trial and further investigated the interaction between sex and the effect of treatment.
The design and primary results of the PARAGON-HF trial have been described previously.9–11 The ethics committees of each of the participating institutions approved the protocol, and all patients gave written, informed consent. Novartis is committed to sharing access to patient-level data and supporting clinical documents from eligible studies with qualified external researchers. These requests are reviewed and approved by an independent review panel on the basis of scientific merit. All data provided are anonymized to respect the privacy of patients who have participated in the trial in line with applicable laws and regulations. The trial data availability is according to the criteria and process described on www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com.
Eligibility for the study included New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II, III, or IV symptoms, an ejection fraction of 45% or higher at or within 6 months of screening, an elevated natriuretic peptide level, evidence of structural heart disease, and diuretic therapy. The natriuretic peptide level threshold for inclusion varied according to whether there had been a recent hospitalization for HF and the presence of atrial fibrillation or flutter. The main exclusion criteria included any previous echocardiographic measurement of LVEF <40%; recent acute coronary syndrome, cardiac surgery, or percutaneous coronary intervention; acute decompensated HF at the time of screening; intolerance to either study drug (or similar classes) or a history of angioedema; systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg or <110 mm Hg; estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2; and serum potassium level >5.2 mmol/L.
All patients initially received valsartan at half the target dose (single-blind run-in period) and then sacubitril-valsartan at half the target dose (single-blind run-in period). If this dose was tolerated, patients were then randomized to treatment with either sacubitril-valsartan or valsartan in a 1:1 fashion. The target doses were sacubitril-valsartan 97 mg/103 mg twice daily or 160 mg of valsartan twice daily. The 103 mg of valsartan in sacubitril-valsartan is equivalent to 160 mg of the standard valsartan formulation.
The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for HF and death from cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes were change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS12) from baseline to 8 months (with a score from 0 to 100, higher scores corresponding to fewer symptoms and limitations), change in NYHA class from baseline to 8 months, time to the first occurrence of a decline in renal function (defined as a reduction of 50% or more in estimated glomerular filtration rate, development of end-stage renal disease, or death caused by renal failure), and time to death from any cause. Safety outcomes included hypotension (defined as a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg), elevation of serum creatinine, elevation of serum potassium, and angioedema.
The trial was designed to recruit 4600 patients and continue until 1847 primary events occurred. Between 2014 and 2016, 10 359 patients in 43 countries were screened and a total of 4796 patients were finally included. Patients were analyzed according to sex (baseline characteristics were compared using t tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and χ2 tests, where appropriate). The primary composite outcome, its components, change in KCCQ-CSS from baseline to 8 months, change in NYHA class from baseline to 8 months, and death from any cause were analyzed, as was safety. An additional expanded primary composite outcome, which included urgent HF visits, was also analyzed. For both sexes, the effect of sacubitril-valsartan compared with valsartan on the primary composite outcome, its components, and the expanded primary composite outcome was examined using the semiparametric proportional rates method of Lin et al13 stratified according to region. The cumulative recurrent events were displayed using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard curves and cumulative first events were displayed using Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary composite outcome and its components were also analyzed using Cox regression for time to first event, as were the renal composite outcome and death from any cause. Changes from baseline to 8 months in KCCQ-CSS, systolic blood pressure, and pulse pressure, and from baseline to 1 year in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide) and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)/creatinine, were analyzed using a multilevel mixed-effects linear regression model, together with a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model for a 5-point or greater change in KCCQ-CSS. Change from baseline to 8 months in NYHA class was analyzed using a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model. The interaction between sex and treatment on each outcome was assessed in each respective statistical test and in a logistic regression model for the safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics between women and men (age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, NT-proBNP [log], estimated glomerular filtration rate, NYHA class, LVEF, previous HF hospitalization, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation); analyses were either stratified (prespecified primary and secondary outcomes) or adjusted for geographical region. A fractional polynomial was constructed using LVEF and entered into the model as an interaction term with treatment. The results of the interaction were displayed graphically using the mfpi command in STATA. The effect of sacubitril-valsartan compared with that of valsartan was modeled over the spectrum of LVEF in women and men separately. All analyses were conducted using STATA version 16 (StataCorp LLC; College Station, TX). P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older than men and had more obesity, a lower median NT-proBNP level, and a lower mean estimated glomerular filtration rate than men (Table 1). The distribution of LVEF in women and men is shown in Figure I in the online-only Data Supplement. The median LVEF in women was 60% and in men it was 55%. Women had a worse NYHA class distribution, worse KCCQ-CSS (and overall summary score), and more symptoms of HF. Women were much less likely than men to be a current or past smoker and had a lower prevalence of coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Women were significantly less likely than men to be treated with a nitrate, a statin, antiplatelet therapy, an anticoagulant, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups in both women and men (Tables I and II in the online-only Data Supplement).
|Women (n=2479)||Men (n=2317)||P Value|
|Age category, y||<0.001|
|50–59||143 (5.8)||232 (10.0)|
|60–69||562 (22.7)||676 (29.2)|
|70–79||1168 (47.1)||942 (40.7)|
|≥80||606 (24.4)||467 (20.2)|
|Asia–Pacific and other||379 (15.3)||383 (16.5)|
|Central Europe||885 (35.7)||830 (35.8)|
|Latin America||222 (9.0)||148 (6.4)|
|North America||264 (10.6)||295 (12.7)|
|Western Europe||729 (29.4)||661 (28.5)|
|Asian||287 (11.6)||320 (13.8)|
|Black||61 (2.5)||41 (1.8)|
|Other||124 (5.0)||56 (2.4)|
|White||2007 (81.0)||1900 (82.0)|
|Duration of heart failure||0.41|
|0–3 months||417 (16.9)||356 (15.4)|
|3–6 months||319 (12.9)||267 (11.5)|
|6–12 months||309 (12.5)||307 (13.3)|
|1–2 years||340 (13.8)||339 (14.7)|
|2–5 years||508 (20.6)||485 (21.0)|
|>5 years||578 (23.4)||559 (24.2)|
|Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg||131±16||130±15||0.04|
|Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg||74±11||74±10||0.99|
|Pulse pressure, mm Hg||57±15||56±14||0.029|
|Heart rate, beats/min||71±12||70±12||0.047|
|Left ventricular ejection fraction, %||58.9±7.9||56.0±7.6||<0.001|
|Body mass index, kg/m2||30.4±5.2||30.0±4.8||0.001|
|Body mass index >30 kg/m2||1272 (51.3)||1082 (46.7)||0.001|
|Waist circumference, cm||101.8±14.5||107.6±14.7||<0.001|
|Abnormal*||1953 (82.8)||1339 (61.6)||<0.001|
|eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2||60±18||65±20||<0.001|
|eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2||1320 (53.2)||1021 (44.1)||<0.001|
|NT-proBNP, pg/mL||836 (446–1601)||954 (496–1631)||0.002|
|In patients with atrial fibrillation†||1712 (1252–2360)||1508 (1124–2210)||<0.001|
|In patients without atrial fibrillation†||575 (378–1018)||625 (381–1103)||0.022|
|Urinary cGMP/creatinine ratio‡||129±70||120±61||0.013|
|NYHA functional class||<0.001|
|I||49 (2.0)||88 (3.8)|
|II||1865 (75.3)||1841 (79.5)|
|III||554 (22.4)||378 (16.3)|
|IV||10 (0.4)||9 (0.4)|
|Clinical summary score||70.8 (56.3–83.9)||79.2 (64.6–90.6)||<0.001|
|Overall summary score||70.8 (55.7–83.6)||77.6 (63.5–88.8)||<0.001|
|Atrial fibrillation†||725 (29.4)||827 (35.8)||<0.001|
|Any history of atrial fibrillation||1280 (51.6)||1241 (53.6)||0.18|
|Angina pectoris||664 (26.8)||724 (31.2)||<0.001|
|Myocardial infarction||389 (15.7)||694 (30.0)||<0.001|
|Hypertension||2392 (96.5)||2192 (94.6)||0.002|
|Diabetes mellitus||1001 (40.4)||1061 (45.8)||<0.001|
|Previous heart failure hospitalization||1113 (44.9)||1193 (51.5)||<0.001|
|Stroke||256 (10.3)||252 (10.9)||0.53|
|Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease||286 (11.5)||384 (16.6)||<0.001|
|Cancer||228 (9.2)||205 (8.9)||0.67|
|Anemia||366 (14.8)||341 (14.7)||0.96|
|Renal disease||589 (23.9)||635 (27.5)||0.004|
|Other vascular disease||266 (10.8)||354 (15.4)||<0.001|
|Coronary artery bypass grafting||172 (6.9)||398 (17.2)||<0.001|
|Percutaneous coronary intervention||369 (14.9)||608 (26.2)||<0.001|
|Smoking (current or former)||546 (22.2)||1308 (56.8)||<0.001|
|ACE inhibitor intolerance||155 (6.3)||107 (4.6)||0.013|
|Diuretic||2352 (94.9)||2233 (96.4)||0.011|
|Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist||590 (23.8)||649 (28.0)||<0.001|
|ACE inhibitor or ARB at screening||2145 (86.5)||1994 (86.1)||0.64|
|β-Blocker||1985 (80.1)||1836 (79.2)||0.47|
|Calcium channel blocker||861 (34.7)||779 (33.6)||0.42|
|Digoxin||248 (10.0)||202 (8.7)||0.13|
|Nitrate||308 (12.4)||391 (16.9)||<0.001|
|Statin||1503 (60.6)||1552 (67.0)||<0.001|
|Antiplatelet||256 (10.3)||379 (16.4)||<0.001|
|Anticoagulant||762 (30.7)||789 (34.1)||0.014|
|Signs and symptoms|
|Dyspnea on effort||2316 (93.5)||2108 (91.1)||0.002|
|Paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea||108 (4.4)||83 (3.6)||0.17|
|Orthopnea||511 (20.6)||375 (16.2)||<0.001|
|Edema||930 (37.6)||896 (38.7)||0.41|
|Rales||163 (6.6)||182 (7.9)||0.086|
|Third heart sound||57 (2.3)||54 (2.3)||0.94|
|Jugular venous distension||321 (13.0)||334 (14.6)||0.13|
|Fatigue||1328 (53.6)||1109 (48.0)||<0.001|
Clinical Outcomes: Women Versus Men (Control Group)
Comparison of event rates in the control (valsartan) group showed that women and men had similar rates of the composite of HF hospitalization or death from cardiovascular causes, whether analyzed as total events, including first and recurrent hospitalizations (Figure 1), or as time to first event (Figure II in the online-only Data Supplement). When the components of this composite were analyzed individually, women were observed to have higher rates of HF hospitalization and lower rates of cardiovascular death (and death from any cause) as compared with men (Table 2, Figure 1, and Figure II in the online-only Data Supplement. The proportions of women and men reported to have an improvement in NYHA class between baseline and 8 months was similar, but the proportion of women describing a clinically important increase in KCCQ-CSS over this period was greater than the corresponding proportion in men (Table 2).
|Women (n=2479)||Men (n=2317)||Interaction P Value|
|All||Sacubitril-Valsartan (n=1241)||Valsartan (n=1238)||All||Sacubitril-Valsartan (n=1166)||Valsartan (n=1151)|
|Primary composite outcome|
|Number of events||923||391||532||980||503||477|
|Event rate (95% CI)||12.7 (11.9–13.6)||10.8 (9.8–11.9)||14.7 (13.5–16.0)||14.8 (13.9–15.8)||15.1 (13.8–16.5)||14.6 (13.3-16.0)|
|Unadjusted rate ratio (95% CI)*||0.73 (0.59–0.90)||1.03 (0.84–1.25)||0.0168*|
|Adjusted rate ratio (95% CI)†||0.73 (0.60–0.90)||1.02 (0.83–1.24)||0.0225†|
|Primary composite outcome plus urgent HF visits|
|Number of events||964||411||553||1034||523||511|
|Event rate (95% CI)||13.3 (12.5–14.2)||11.3 (10.3–12.5)||15.3 (14.1–16.6)||15.7 (14.7–16.6)||15.7 (14.4–17.1)||15.6 (14.3-17.0)|
|Unadjusted rate ratio (95% CI)*||0.73 (0.60–0.91)||1.00 (0.82–1.21)||0.0329*|
|Adjusted rate ratio (95% CI)†||0.74 (0.61–0.91)||0.99 (0.81–1.20)||0.0449†|
|Total hospitalizations for HF|
|Number of events||738||298||440||749||392||357|
|Event rate (95% CI)||10.2 (9.5–11.0)||8.2 (7.3–9.2)||12.2 (11.1–13.3)||11.3 (10.6–12.2)||11.8 (10.6–13.0)||10.9 (9.8-12.1)|
|Unadjusted rate ratio (95% CI)*||0.67 (0.53–0.85)||1.07 (0.85–1.34)||0.0046*|
|Adjusted rate ratio (95% CI)†||0.67 (0.54–0.84)||1.06 (0.84–1.34)||0.0048†|
|Number of events||185||93||92||231||111||120|
|Event rate (95% CI)||2.6 (2.2–2.9)||2.6 (2.1–3.1)||2.5 (2.1–3.1)||3.5 (3.1–4.0)||3.3 (2.8–4.0)||3.7 (3.1-4.4)|
|Unadjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)*||1.02 (0.76–1.36)||0.90 (0.70–1.17)||0.5763*|
|Adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)†||1.05 (0.78–1.41)||0.88 (0.67–1.14)||0.3688†|
|Death from any cause|
|Number of events||312||153||159||379||189||190|
|Event rate (95% CI)||4.3 (3.9–4.8)||4.2 (3.6–4.9)||4.4 (3.8–5.1)||5.7 (5.2–6.3)||5.7 (4.9–6.5)||5.8 (5.0-6.7)|
|Unadjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)*||0.96 (0.77–1.20)||0.97 (0.80–1.19)||0.9040*|
|Adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)†||0.99 (0.79–1.24)||0.95 (0.77–1.17)||0.8703†|
|First hospitalization for HF or CV death|
|Number of events||524||239||285||559||287||272|
|Event rate (95% CI)||7.9 (7.3–8.6)||7.1 (6.3–8.1)||8.8 (7.8–9.8)||9.3 (8.5–10.1)||9.5 (8.4–10.6)||9.1 (8.0-10.2)|
|Unadjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)*||0.81 (0.68–0.96)||1.03 (0.87–1.21)||0.0440*|
|Adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)†||0.78 (0.65–0.92)||1.03 (0.87–1.22)||0.0213†|
|First hospitalization for HF|
|Number of events||417||183||234||421||222||199|
|Event rate (95% CI)||6.3 (5.7–7.0)||5.5 (4.7–6.3)||7.2 (6.3–8.2)||7.0 (6.3–7.7)||7.3 (6.4–8.4)||6.6 (5.8-7.6)|
|Unadjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)*||0.75 (0.62–0.91)||1.08 (0.89–1.31)||0.0070*|
|Adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)†||0.72 (0.59–0.87)||1.09 (0.90–1.33)||0.0025†|
|Change in NYHA from baseline to 8 months|
|Improved, n (%)||344 (14.5)||193 (16.4)||151 (12.7)||292 (13.0)||154 (13.5)||138 (12.4)|
|Unchanged, n (%)||1817 (76.8)||881 (74.9)||936 (78.6)||1742 (77.4)||886 (77.7)||856 (77.1)|
|Worsened, n (%)||206 (8.7)||102 (8.7)||104 (8.7)||217 (9.6)||100 (8.8)||117 (10.5)|
|Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI)*‡||1.72 (1.07–2.76)||1.34 (0.80–2.23)||0.4401*|
|Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)†‡||1.69 (1.04–2.74)||1.37 (0.82–2.29)||0.5040†|
|Change in KCCQ clinical summary score from baseline to 8 months|
|Difference||−0.6 (−2.1 to 0.8)||2.8 (1.3 to 4.3)||0.0013* 0.0032†|
|Increase ≥5 points, n (%)||761 (33.3)||386 (34.0)||375 (32.7)||640 (29.2)||357 (32.0)||283 (26.3)|
|Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI)*§||1.09 (0.81–1.46)||1.57 (1.14–2.15)||0.1080*|
|Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)†§||1.11 (0.83–1.50)||1.55 (1.13–2.13)||0.1602†|
|Renal composite outcome|
|Number of events||48||16||32||49||17||32|
|Event rate (95% CI)||0.7 (0.5–0.9)||0.4 (0.3–0.7)||0.9 (0.6–1.3)||0.7 (0.6–1.0)||0.5 (0.3–0.8)||1.0 (0.7–1.4)|
|Unadjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)*||0.49 (0.27–0.89)||0.53 (0.29–0.95)||0.8956*|
|Adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)†||0.46 (0.25–0.84)||0.47 (0.26–0.86)||0.9714†|
|New-onset atrial fibrillation|
|Number of events||144||84||60||118||53||65|
|Event rate (95% CI)||2.1 (1.7–2.4)||2.4 (1.9–3.0)||1.7 (1.3–2.2)||1.8 (1.5–2.2)||1.6 (1.2–2.1)||2.1 (1.6–2.6)|
|Unadjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)*||1.41 (1.02–1.97)||0.79 (0.55–1.13)||0.0189*|
|Adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)†||1.43 (1.02–1.99)||0.78 (0.54–1.12)||0.0139†|
|Change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 1 year|
|Difference||−137 (−289 to 15)||−261 (−468 to −54)||0.3573*|
|Change in urinary cGMP/creatinine from baseline to 1 year|
|Difference||54.6 (44.6 to 64.5)||54.5 (45.8 to 63.1)||0.9935*|
|Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 8 months|
|Change, mm Hg||1.9±0.3||−0.3±0.5||4.1±0.5||0.8±0.3||−1.4±0.5||3.1±0.5|
|Difference||−4.3 (−5.6 to −3.0)||−4.6 (−5.9 to −3.3)||0.8058*|
|Change in pulse pressure from baseline to 8 months|
|Change, mm Hg||1.2±0.3||−0.3±0.4||2.6±0.4||0.6±0.3||−0.9±0.4||2.2±0.4|
|Difference||−2.9 (−4.0 to −1.8)||−3.1 (−4.2 to −2.0)||0.8109*|
Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan: Women Versus Men
The rate ratio for the primary outcome with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with valsartan, in women was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.90) and in men it was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84–1.25; P interaction = 0.017; Table 2 and Figure 1). Adjustment for the baseline differences between women and men did not change this result (Table 2). An alternative approach to analysis of recurrent events (negative binomial method) gave qualitatively similar findings to the LWYY method (Figure III in the online-only Data Supplement). The composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, analyzed as time to first event, gave similar findings to the analysis of total events (Table 2 and Figure II in the online-only Data Supplement).
Further examination of the apparent benefit of sacubitril-valsartan over valsartan in women showed that the effect was predominantly related to HF hospitalization, with no discernible reduction in death from cardiovascular causes (or from any cause; Table 2, Figure 1, and Figure II in the online-only Data Supplement). The magnitude of the effect on first and recurrent hospitalizations for HF was substantial, with a 33% (95% CI, 15–47) relative risk reduction in women versus men (P interaction = 0.005). Analysis of first hospitalizations for HF gave similar findings to total (first and recurrent) admissions (Figure II in the online-only Data Supplement).
Examination of the effect of treatment across the range of LVEF studied suggested more benefit from sacubitril-valsartan at a lower LVEF, whether using analysis of total events (Figure 2) or analyzing first events only (Figure IV in the online-only Data Supplement). These fractional polynomial analyses also suggested that the upper threshold at which benefit diminished was higher in women than in men (Figure 2 and Figure IV in the online-only Data Supplement).
The proportional improvement in NYHA class with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the relative improvement in KCCQ-CSS seemed to be less in women than in men (although in this responder analysis, examining patients with a ≥5-point improvement, there was no statistically significant interaction between sex and response to sacubitril-valsartan). When examined as a continuous variable, the sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan difference in KCCQ-CSS change was also more favorable in men compared with women (P interaction = 0.038, adjusted P interaction = 0.067).
The improvement in renal function with sacubitril-valsartan compared with valsartan was similar in women and men (Table 2).
New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation
The risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation was higher in women treated with sacubitril-valsartan compared with valsartan, whereas the opposite was true for men. Although this resulted in a significant interaction between sex and the effect of treatment, the numbers of events were small.
Other Measures: Change in NT-proBNP, Systolic Blood Pressure and Pulse Pressure, and Urinary cGMP/Creatinine
The reductions from baseline to 8 months in systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure and from baseline to 1 year in NT-proBNP with sacubitril-valsartan as compared with valsartan were similar in men and women (Table 2). The increase from baseline to 1 year in urinary cGMP to creatinine ratio with sacubitril-valsartan treatment was also similar in women and men (Table 2).
Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan: Safety in Women Versus Men
Hypotension was more common, and increases in creatinine and potassium less common, with sacubitril-valsartan as compared with valsartan (Table 3). The difference in these adverse events of interest between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men. There were too few cases of angioedema for meaningful analysis by sex.
|Women (n=2479)||Men (n=2317)||Interaction P Value|
|All||Sacubitril-Valsartan (n=1241)||Valsartan (n=1238)||All||Sacubitril-Valsartan (n=1166)||Valsartan (n=1151)|
|Hypotension||317 (12.8)||195 (15.7)||122 (9.9)||320 (13.8)||185 (15.9)||135 (11.7)||0.3796*|
|Elevated serum creatinine, mg/dL|
|≥2.0||181 (7.3)||75 (6.0)||106 (8.6)||408 (17.6)||186 (16.0)||222 (19.3)||0.4070*|
|≥2.5||58 (2.3)||28 (2.3)||30 (2.4)||148 (6.4)||69 (5.9)||79 (6.9)||0.8181*|
|≥3.0||22 (0.9)||12 (1.0)||10 (0.8)||56 (2.4)||26 (2.2)||30 (2.6)||0.5118*|
|Elevated serum potassium, mmol/L|
|>5.5||330 (13.3)||160 (12.9)||170 (13.7)||347 (15.0)||156 (13.4)||191 (16.6)||0.2515*|
|>6.0||86 (3.5)||35 (2.8)||51 (4.1)||90 (3.9)||40 (3.4)||50 (4.3)||0.6491*|
|Angioedema||14 (0.6)||11 (0.9)||3 (0.2)||4 (0.2)||3 (0.3)||1 (0.1)||0.8840*|
|Liver-related adverse event||143 (5.8)||64 (5.2)||79 (6.4)||186 (8.0)||87 (7.5)||99 (8.6)||0.7200*|
|Target dose‡||1368 (82.6)||675 (80.6)||693 (84.5)||1314 (84.5)||665 (83.3)||649 (85.7)||—|
|Discontinuation for reasons other than death||679 (27.4)||336 (27.1)||343 (27.7)||569 (24.6)||274 (23.5)||295 (25.6)||—|
More than half of the participants in the PARAGON-HF trial were women, representing one of the largest populations of women with HFpEF ever studied. We found that women and men with HFpEF have distinct clinical profiles and that, compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan led to a greater reduction in HF hospitalization in women than in men. The difference in the clinical profile between men and women with HFpEF is consistent with previous results, particularly in relation to the lower risk of death and greater severity of symptoms in women.1–6 That we observed a greater treatment effect on HF hospitalization in women than men is more novel, and of some interest, given that HFpEF is the predominant phenotype in women.1–6 The proportion of HFpEF in the population may be even higher than indicated by the characteristics of the participants in the PARAGON-HF trial as, in keeping with trials in general, our patients were younger and had less comorbidity than reported in epidemiologic studies.3,5,6
The major question arising is whether this subgroup finding was attributable to chance or represents a real difference between women and men in response to therapy. A framework for interpretation of treatment heterogeneity in subgroups has been provided by several authors.14–17 Key principles include prespecification of the subgroup of interest, that the subgroup should be of sufficient size, and that a statistical test for interaction is carried out. Each of these conditions was fulfilled in the present study and in a further step, an interaction between sex (along with ejection fraction) and the effect of treatment persisted in a multivariable analysis including all prespecified subgroups.11
Other key considerations are biological plausibility and internal consistency and external validation. In terms of biological plausibility, there are several reasons why women might have a more favorable response to neprilysin inhibition than men. The normal LVEF range is higher in women than in men, reflecting sex-related differences in cardiac remodeling in response to factors including blood pressure and age.3–6,18 For a given LVEF, more women than men may have other evidence of contractile dysfunction.2–6,19,20 If correct, this would mean that more women than men in the present study had mild left ventricular systolic dysfunction. This view is consistent with the apparent benefit of sacubitril-valsartan, a drug clearly effective in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, to a higher LVEF value in women compared with men in the fractional polynomial analyses (Figure 2).
Alternatively, age-related arterial stiffening is more pronounced in women than in men and has been postulated to be a key pathophysiologic factor in HFpEF.21 However, the reduction in pulse pressure and systolic blood pressure with sacubitril-valsartan compared with valsartan was similar in women and men, although pulse pressure is a relatively crude measure of arterial stiffness.22
We confirmed that natriuretic peptide levels are lower in women than in men with HFpEF despite more severe symptoms and known higher left ventricular diastolic and systolic stiffness and filling pressures in women compared with men.2–6,19 However, women have much more visceral obesity than men with HFpEF (as evidenced by waist circumference in the present study) and obesity is associated with lower natriuretic peptide levels. There are also known sex differences in natriuretic peptide biology, with crosstalk between these peptides and sex hormones, possibly leading to a decrease in natriuretic peptide levels after menopause.5,23–28 This potential relative natriuretic peptide deficiency will lead to reduced cGMP–protein kinase G signaling.24–31 Any reduction in cGMP–protein kinase G signaling attributable to a relative natriuretic peptide deficiency may be exacerbated in postmenopausal women by of loss of alternative, estrogen-dependent stimulation of this pathway through endothelial nitric oxide synthase activation and nitric oxide generation.5,24–31 Consequently, by augmenting natriuretic peptides, sacubitril-valsartan may be of greater benefit in women than in men, if women are viewed as having deficient cGMP–protein kinase G signaling.5,24–31 The increase in urinary cGMP/creatinine with sacubitril-valsartan was as large in women as in men. The present trial does not provide direct mechanistic evidence to support this hypothesis.
Neprilysin also degrades other biologically active peptides and it is possible that there could be a sex-related difference in these alternative actions of sacubitril-valsartan. Women may have a greater increase than men in bradykinin production with neprilysin inhibition as they are more likely to develop angioedema than men with both neprilysin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition.32
A much smaller proportion of women compared with men were current or former smokers, which may be relevant, because in a population study, smoking was the variable most strongly associated with plasma neprilysin level.33 However, adjustment for smoking status did not change the apparently greater effect of sacubitril-valsartan in women compared with men.
We also considered whether the precipitants of HF hospitalization, one of which is new-onset atrial fibrillation, might differ between women and men.34 Confirmed new-onset atrial fibrillation was relatively infrequent in the trial and the effect of sacubitril-valsartan on this outcome was less favorable in women than in men. This means that incident atrial fibrillation cannot account for the sex-related difference in the effect of sacubitril-valsartan on HF hospitalization.
There may have been a larger subgroup of patients not responsive to treatment with sacubitril-valsartan among men compared with women in the PARAGON-HF trial (eg, patients with undiagnosed cardiac amyloidosis or genetic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy), although it is unclear whether these conditions are more prevalent in men than women with HFpEF.35
From the point of view of internal consistency, we found that improvements in patient-reported and physician-reported outcomes were not greater with sacubitril-valsartan in women compared with men. Change in KCCQ-CSS showed a more favorable response to sacubitril-valsartan in men than in women. This may reflect the much worse KCCQ-CSS at baseline in women or chance. NYHA class improved to a similar extent in women and men. Whereas there is a relatively weak correlation between functional class and health-related quality of life and risk of hospital admission, it is still somewhat surprising that the sex-related responses to sacubitril-valsartan were directionally different for these outcomes. The improvement in renal function with sacubitril-valsartan over valsartan was similar in women and men. Overall, therefore, sacubitril-valsartan had similar (or greater, in the case of KCCQ-CSS) benefits in men as compared with women, with the exception of reduction in HF hospitalization, which was greater in women.
In terms of external validation, sex seems to modify response to some treatments in patients with HF. In HFrEF, women appear to obtain more benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy but less benefit from digoxin.36,37 In HFpEF, sex-specific spline analysis examining the effect of spironolactone across the range of LVEF studied in the TOPCAT trial (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist) showed that women appeared to benefit across the whole LVEF spectrum, whereas in men, there was only benefit at a lower ejection fraction.38 Unpublished data from the CHARM-Preserved trial (Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) report the same pattern (Figure V in the online-only Data Supplement).39 Whereas these examples support the possibility of sex as a modifier of treatment effect, no such interaction was found for sacubitril-valsartan compared with enalapril in patients with HFrEF in the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), suggesting that any modification of the effect of this treatment by sex is only apparent at higher ejection fractions.40 However, direct comparison of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF is not straightforward as the comparator therapy in the former trial was enalapril and there is less evidence for benefit of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with angiotensin receptor blockers in women, and the comparator therapy in the PARAGON-HF trial was an angiotensin receptor blocker.39,41 The possible discrepancy in sex differences in treatment response by type of HF (HFpEF versus HFrEF) also seems to be the case for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists when the TOPCAT findings are compared with those of the HFrEF trials using mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and for candesartan (CHARM reduced LVEF trials compared with CHARM-Preserved).39,42
PARAGON-HF was an active-controlled trial and, therefore, the possible benefit of sacubitril-valsartan over valsartan in women could reflect lower efficacy of valsartan in women compared with men, though this is not supported by published analyses of trials using angiotensin receptor blockers in HFrEF.39,41
It is unlikely that a greater degree of neprilysin inhibition or angiotensin receptor blockade in women might explain the apparent difference between women and men in response to sacubitril-valsartan.43 Women did not achieve a higher target dose of sacubitril-valsartan than men and did not have a lower treatment discontinuation rate. The pharmacokinetics of sacubitril-valsartan and its metabolites do not differ in women versus men.44 The reduction in blood pressure and NT-proBNP and increase in urinary cGMP was similar in women and men. Collectively, this information makes it unlikely that a greater effective dose leading to a greater neprilysin inhibition or angiotensin receptor blockade could account for the difference between women and men with respect to HF hospitalization.
As with any study of this type, there are some limitations. We do not have information on more sensitive measures of left ventricular systolic function than ejection fraction. We do not have information on cardiac and other biomarkers, including neprilysin levels or sex hormones, except for NT-proBNP and cGMP.
As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding.
Sources of Funding
Dr McMurray is supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant (RE/18/6/34217), and Dr Jackson is supported by a British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Training Fellowship (FS/18/14/33330).
Dr McMurray reports that his employer, Glasgow University, has been paid by Novartis for his serving as an executive committee member and co–principal investigator of the ATMOSPHERE (Efficacy and Safety of Aliskiren and Aliskiren/Enalapril Combination on Morbidity–Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure), PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), and PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials and as an executive/steering committee member of the PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) and PERSPECTIVE (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials (with sacubitril-valsartan) and for meetings/presentations related to these trials, aliskiren, and sacubitril-valsartan. Novartis has also paid for his travel and accommodation for some of these meetings. Glasgow University has also been paid by Novartis for Dr McMurray serving on an advisory board; by Bayer for serving as a steering committee member of the PANACHE (A Trial to Study Neladenoson Bialanate Over 20 Weeks in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial using neladenoson bialanate (BAY 1067197); by Cardiorentis for serving as a steering committee member and endpoint committee chair for the TRUE-AHF (Trial of Ularitide Efficacy and Safety in Acute Heart Failure) trial and attending meetings related to this trial; by Cardiorentis for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by Amgen for serving as a steering committee member for the ATOMIC-HF (Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of IV Infusion Treatment With Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Subjects With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Hospitalized for Acute Heart Failure) and COSMIC-HF (Chronic Oral Study of Myosin Activation to Increase Contractility in Heart Failure) trials and attending meetings related to these trials; by Amgen for travel and accommodation for some of these meetings; by Oxford University (which received a grant from Bayer, which manufactures acarbose) for serving as a steering committee member for the ACE (Acarbose Cardiovascular Evaluation) trial (using acarbose) and attending meetings related to this trial; by Theracos for serving as principal investigator for the BEST (Bypass Surgery Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) trial and attending meetings related to this trial; by Theracos for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by AbbVie (which manufactures atrasentan) for serving as a steering committee member for the SONAR (Study of Diabetic Nephropathy With Atrasentan) trial (using atrasentan) and to attend meetings related to this trial; by AbbVie for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by DalCor Pharmaceuticals for serving as a steering committee member for the Dal-GenE (Effect of Dalcetrapib vs Placebo on CV Risk in a Genetically Defined Population With a Recent ACS) trial and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Pfizer for serving on the data safety monitoring committee for the SPIRE (The Evaluation of Bococizumab [PF-04950615;RN316] in Reducing the Occurrence of Major Cardiovascular Events in High Risk Subjects) trial and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Merck for serving on the data safety monitoring committee for the MK-3102 program for the VICTORIA (A Study of Vericiguat in Participants With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial and for attending meetings related to this trial; by AstraZeneca (which markets dapagliflozin) for serving as principal investigator of DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) and co–principal investigator of DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure; trials using dapagliflozin on heart failure) and to attend meetings related to these trials; by AstraZeneca for travel and accommodation to attend meetings; by GlaxoSmithKline for serving as co–principal investigator and steering committee member, respectively, for the Harmony-Outcomes trial (albiglutide) and 2 trials, ASCEND-D (Anemia Studies in Chronic Kidney Disease: Erythropoiesis Via a Novel Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitor Daprodustat-Dialysis) and ASCEND-ND (Anemia Studies in Chronic Kidney Disease: Erythropoiesis Via a Novel Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitor Daprodustat-Non-Dialysis), using daprodustat, and to attend meetings related to these trials; by GlaxoSmithKline for travel and accommodation to attend some of the meetings; by Bristol-Myers Squibb for serving as a steering committee member for the STAND-UP (Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of 48-Hour Infusions of HNO [Nitroxyl] Donor in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure) clinical trial (using an HNO donor) on heart failure and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Kings College Hospital (which has received a grant from KRUK and Vifor-Fresenius, which manufacture intravenous iron) for serving as a steering committee member for the PIVOTAL (Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients) trial (using intravenous iron) and for running the endpoint adjudication committee for this trial; and to attend meetings related to PIVOTAL and for travel and accommodation to attend some of the meetings. All payments were made through consultancies with Glasgow University, and Dr McMurray has not received any personal payments in relation to the trials or drugs. Dr Lam reports receiving grant support and fees for serving on an advisory board from Boston Scientific and Roche Diagnostics; grant support, fees for serving on an advisory board, and fees for serving on steering committees from Bayer; grant support from Medtronic; grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from Vifor Pharma; fees for serving on an advisory board and for serving on steering committees from AstraZeneca and Novartis; fees for serving on an advisory board from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Abbott Diagnostics; consulting fees from Merck and Stealth BioTherapeutics; fees for serving on a steering committee from Janssen Research and Development; lecture fees and consulting fees from Menarini; and fees for serving on a scientific committee from Corvia Medical and holding a pending patent (PCT/SG2016/050217) on a method regarding diagnosis and prognosis of chronic heart failure. Dr Redfield reports being an unpaid consultant for Novartis. Dr Anand reports receiving fees for serving on a steering committee from AstraZeneca, ARCA biopharma, Amgen, and LivaNova; fees for serving as chair of a data and safety monitoring board from Boston Scientific; fees for serving on an end point committee from Boehringer Ingelheim; and fees for serving on an advisory board from Zensun. Drs Lefkowitz, Rizkala, Sabarwal, and Shi are salaried employees of Novartis, and A. R. Rizkala owns Novartis stock. Dr Maggioni reports receiving fees for serving on a study committee from Bayer and Fresenius. Dr Martinez reports receiving personal fees from Novartis. Dr Packer reports receiving consulting fees from AbbVie, Akcea, Actavis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Relypsa, Sanofi, Synthetic Biologics, and Theravance. Dr Pfeffer reports grants paid to his institution for serving on the steering committee of PARAGON-HF and for serving as study chair of PARADISE-MI from Novartis and personal fees for consulting from AstraZeneca, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MyoKardia, Servier, Takeda, and Corvidia. M.A.P. owns stock options of DalCor. Dr Pieske reports receiving fees for serving on a steering committee, fees for serving on an advisory board, and lecture fees from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and MSD; lecture fees from AstraZeneca; fees for serving on an advisory board and lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb; fees for serving on an advisory board from Daiichi Sankyo; and lecture fees and honoraria from Medscape. Dr A. M. Shah reports receiving research support from Novartis, Gilead, and Actelion and consulting fees from Myocardia. Dr S. J. Shah reports receiving grant support, fees for serving as a principal investigator of a clinical trial, and consulting fees from Actelion and AstraZeneca; grant support and fees for serving as a principal investigator of a clinical trial from Corvia Medical; consulting fees from Amgen, Cardiora, Eisai, Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, MyoKardia, Axon Therapies, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; fees for serving as a principal investigator of a clinical trial and consulting fees from Bayer; fees for serving on a steering committee and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Ironwood Pharma–Cyclerion Therapeutics; fees for serving on a steering committee from United Therapeutics; and fees for serving on a clinical events committee from CVRx. Dr van Veldhuisen reports receiving fees for serving on a steering committee and travel support from ARCA biopharma and Corvia Medical. Dr Zannad reports receiving fees for serving on a steering committee from Janssen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CVRx, and Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting fees from Amgen, Vifor Pharma–Fresenius, Cardior, Cereno Pharmaceutical, Applied Therapeutics, and Merck; and consulting fees and fees for serving on a steering committee and serving as founder of CardioRenal and CVCT from AstraZeneca. Dr Zile reports grants and personal fees from Novartis for being a member of the PARAGON-HF Executive Steering Committee and a local investigator; personal fees from Abbott for serving on the executive committee of the GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure) trial; personal fees for consulting on product development from Boston Scientific; grants and personal fees for serving on the Executive Steering Committee and being a local investigator for the BeAT HF trial (Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Heart Failure Pivotal Trial) from CVRx; personal fees for serving on the eligibility committee of the SOLVE trial (Stimulation of the Left Ventricular Endocardium for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Non-Responders and Previously Untreatable Patients) from EBR; personal fees for serving on the Clinical Events Committee of the SIRONA trial (A Prospective, Multi-Center, Open-Label, Single-Arm Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of the Cordella Heart Failure System in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients) from Endotronics; personal fees for serving on the Executive Steering Committee of the CAPACITY HFpEF trial (A Study of the Effect of IW-1973 on the Exercise Capacity of Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) from Ironwood; personal fees for serving on the data safety monitoring board of the Ertugliflozin trial (MK-8835/PF-04971729) from Merck; grants and personal fees for serving on the executive steering committee of the Revamp Trial, Alleviate Trial, Link-HF trial (Link-HF, Phase II: Multisensor Non-invasive Telemonitoring System for Prediction of Heart Failure Exacerbation), and Intervene trial and being a local investigator from Medtronic; personal fees for consulting for product development from MyoKardia; and personal fees for serving on the eligibility committee of the RELIEVE trial (Reducing Lung Congestion Symptoms in Advanced Heart Failure) from V Wave. Dr Cikes reports receiving personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Sanofi Genzyme, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Pfizer, personal fees from Orion Pharma, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Abbott, personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Sandoz, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries., personal fees from Servier, and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work. Dr Goncalvesova reports receiving grant support, consulting fees, lecture fees, and travel support from Novartis; consulting fees, lecture fees, and travel support from Servier and Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting fees and lecture fees from Medtronic; consulting fees and travel support from Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Bayer. Dr Katova reports receiving lecture fees, fees for serving on an advisory board, and travel support from Novartis; and lecture fees, consulting fees, and fees for serving on an advisory board from AstraZeneca. Dr Lelonek reports receiving honoraria and lecture fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, Gedeon Richter, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bausch Health. Dr Sweitzer reports research grants from Novartis and Merck. B.C. reports receiving consulting fees from AOBiome, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia Medical, Gilead Sciences, and MyoKardia. Dr Vardeny reports receiving research and consultant support from Novartis. Dr Jhund reports receiving grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim and fees for serving on an advisory board from Cytokinetics. Dr Solomon reports grants paid to his institution for chairing PARAGON-HF from Novartis; grants paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bellerophon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Gilead, Celladon, Eidos, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and consulting fees from Alnylam, Amgen, AOBiome, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimensions, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Janssen, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Quantum Genomics, Roche, Takeda, Tenaya, and Theracos. The other authors report no conflicts.
Dewan P, Rørth R, Jhund PS, Shen L, Raparelli V, Petrie MC, Abraham WT, Desai AS, Dickstein K, Køber L,. Differential impact of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on men and women.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73:29–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.081CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Gori M, Lam CS, Gupta DK, Santos AB, Cheng S, Shah AM, Claggett B, Zile MR, Kraigher-Krainer E, Pieske B,; PARAMOUNT Investigators. Sex-specific cardiovascular structure and function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Eur J Heart Fail. 2014; 16:535–542. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.67CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Stolfo D, Uijl A, Vedin O, Strömberg A, Faxén UL, Rosano GMC, Sinagra G, Dahlström U, Savarese G. Sex-based differences in heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: phenotyping, and prognostic and therapeutic implications.JACC Heart Fail. 2019; 7:505–515. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.03.011CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Beale AL, Nanayakkara S, Segan L, Mariani JA, Maeder MT, van Empel V, Vizi D, Evans S, Lam CSP, Kaye DM. Sex differences in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction pathophysiology: a detailed invasive hemodynamic and echocardiographic analysis.JACC Heart Fail. 2019; 7:239–249. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.01.004CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Beale AL, Meyer P, Marwick TH, Lam CSP, Kaye DM. Sex differences in cardiovascular pathophysiology: why women are overrepresented in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Circulation. 2018; 138:198–205. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.034271LinkGoogle Scholar
Tibrewala A, Yancy CW. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in women.Heart Fail Clin. 2019; 15:9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.hfc.2018.08.002CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, Falk V, González-Juanatey JR, Harjola VP, Jankowska EA,; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC):developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.Eur Heart J. 2016; 37:2129–2200. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, Colvin MM, Drazner MH, Filippatos GS, Fonarow GC, Givertz MM,. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA focused update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America.Circulation. 2017; 136:e137–e161. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000509LinkGoogle Scholar
Solomon SD, Rizkala AR, Gong J, Wang W, Anand IS, Ge J, Lam CSP, Maggioni AP, Martinez F, Packer M,. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: rationale and design of the PARAGON-HF trial.JACC Heart Fail. 2017; 5:471–482. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.04.013CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Solomon SD, Rizkala AR, Lefkowitz MP, Shi VC, Gong J, Anavekar N, Anker SD, Arango JL, Arenas JL, Atar D,. Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial.Circ Heart Fail. 2018; 11:e004962. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.118.004962LinkGoogle Scholar
Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Anand IS, Ge J, Lam CSP, Maggioni AP, Martinez F, Packer M, Pfeffer MA, Pieske B,; PARAGON-HF Investigators and Committees. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.N Engl J Med. 2019; 381:1609–1620. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908655CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Green CP, Porter CB, Bresnahan DR, Spertus JA. Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: a new health status measure for heart failure.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35:1245–1255. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(00)00531-3CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Claggett B, Pocock S, Wei LJ, Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJV, Solomon SD. Comparison of time-to-first event and recurrent-event methods in randomized clinical trials.Circulation. 2018; 138:570–577. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.033065LinkGoogle Scholar
Wittes J. On looking at subgroups.Circulation. 2009; 119:912–915. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.836601LinkGoogle Scholar
Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler HA. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials.JAMA. 1991; 266:93–98. doi: 10.1001/jama.1991.03470010097038CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Hunter DJ, Drazen JM. Statistics in medicine: reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials.N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:2189–2194. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr077003CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, You JJ, Akl EA, Mejza F, Bala MM, Bassler D, Mertz D, Diaz-Granados N,. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review.BMJ. 2012; 344:e1553. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1553CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 18. Echocardiographic Normal Ranges Meta-Analysis of the Left Heart Collaboration. Ethnic-specific normative reference values for echocardiographic LA and LV size, LV mass, and systolic function: the EchoNoRMAL study.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015; 8:656–665. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.02.014CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kraigher-Krainer E, Shah AM, Gupta DK, Santos A, Claggett B, Pieske B, Zile MR, Voors AA, Lefkowitz MP, Packer M,; PARAMOUNT Investigators. Impaired systolic function by strain imaging in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63:447–456. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.09.052CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Föll D, Jung B, Schilli E, Staehle F, Geibel A, Hennig J, Bode C, Markl M. Magnetic resonance tissue phase mapping of myocardial motion: new insight in age and gender.Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010; 3:54–64. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.108.813857LinkGoogle Scholar
Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Borlaug BA, Rodeheffer RJ, Kass DA. Age- and gender-related ventricular-vascular stiffening: a community-based study.Circulation. 2005; 112:2254–2262. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.541078LinkGoogle Scholar
Chirinos JA. Arterial stiffness: basic concepts and measurement techniques.J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2012; 5:243–255. doi: 10.1007/s12265-012-9359-6CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lam CS, Cheng S, Choong K, Larson MG, Murabito JM, Newton-Cheh C, Bhasin S, McCabe EL, Miller KK, Redfield MM,. Influence of sex and hormone status on circulating natriuretic peptides.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58:618–626. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.03.042CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Clerico A, Passino C, Emdin M. When gonads talk to the heart sex hormones and cardiac endocrine function.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58:627–628. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.03.043CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Glisic M, Rojas LZ, Asllanaj E, Vargas KG, Kavousi M, Ikram MA, Fauser BCJM, Laven JSE, Muka T, Franco OH. Sex steroids, sex hormone-binding globulin and levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in postmenopausal women.Int J Cardiol. 2018; 261:189–195. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.03.008CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ying W, Zhao D, Ouyang P, Subramanya V, Vaidya D, Ndumele CE, Sharma K, Shah SJ, Heckbert SR, Lima JA,. Sex hormones and change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018; 103:4304–4314. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-01437CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Moreau KL, Hildreth KL. Vascular aging across the menopause transition in healthy women.Adv Vasc Med. 2014; pii:204390. doi: 10.1155/2014/204390Google Scholar
Novella S, Pérez-Cremades D, Mompeón A, Hermenegildo C. Mechanisms underlying the influence of oestrogen on cardiovascular physiology in women.J Physiol. 2019; 597:4873–4886. doi: 10.1113/JP278063CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mannacio V, Di Tommaso L, Antignano A, De Amicis V, Stassano P, Pinna GB, Vosa C. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression in postmenopausal women: a sex-specific risk factor in coronary surgery.Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 94:1934–1939. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.06.040CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Cui R, Iso H, Pi J, Kumagai Y, Yamagishi K, Tanigawa T, Shimamoto T. Relationship between urinary cGMP excretion and serum total cholesterol levels in a general population.Atherosclerosis. 2005; 179:379–386. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2004.10.031CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Salhotra S, Arora S, Anubhuti , Trivedi SS, Bhattacharjee J. Influence of menopause on biochemical markers of endothelial dysfunction: a case-control pilot study in North Indian population.Maturitas. 2009; 62:166–170. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.11.024CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kostis WJ, Shetty M, Chowdhury YS, Kostis JB. ACE inhibitor-induced angioedema: a review.Curr Hypertens Rep. 2018; 20:55. doi: 10.1007/s11906-018-0859-xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Reddy YNV, Iyer SR, Scott CG, Rodeheffer RJ, Bailey K, Jenkins G, Batzler A, Redfield MM, Burnett JC, Pereira NL. Soluble neprilysin in the general population: clinical determinants and its relationship to cardiovascular disease.J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8:e012943. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012943LinkGoogle Scholar
Platz E, Jhund PS, Claggett BL, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Yusuf S, Solomon SD, McMurray JJ. Prevalence and prognostic importance of precipitating factors leading to heart failure hospitalization: recurrent hospitalizations and mortality.Eur J Heart Fail. 2018; 20:295–303. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.901CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fajardo J, Cummings A, Brown E, Cuomo K, Rhodes P, Woodbury S, Gilotra N, Russell S, Judge D. Clinical pathway to screen for cardiac amyloidosis in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Amyloid. 2019; 26(suppl 1):166–167. doi: 10.1080/13506129.2019.1583178CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Linde C, Cleland JGF, Gold MR, Claude Daubert J, Tang ASL, Young JB, Sherfesee L, Abraham WT. The interaction of sex, height, and QRS duration on the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on morbidity and mortality: an individual-patient data meta-analysis.Eur J Heart Fail. 2018; 20:780–791. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1133CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Adams KF, Patterson JH, Gattis WA, O’Connor CM, Lee CR, Schwartz TA, Gheorghiade M. Relationship of serum digoxin concentration to mortality and morbidity in women in the digitalis investigation group trial: a retrospective analysis.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46:497–504. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.02.091CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Solomon SD, Claggett B, Lewis EF, Desai A, Anand I, Sweitzer NK, O’Meara E, Shah SJ, McKinlay S, Fleg JL,; TOPCAT Investigators. Influence of ejection fraction on outcomes and efficacy of spironolactone in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Eur Heart J. 2016; 37:455–462. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv464CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Young JB, Dunlap ME, Pfeffer MA, Probstfield JL, Cohen-Solal A, Dietz R, Granger CB, Hradec J, Kuch J, McKelvie RS,; Candesartan in HeartFailure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality andMorbidity (CHARM) Investigators and Committees. Mortality and morbidity reduction with candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction: results of the CHARM low-left ventricular ejection fraction trials.Circulation. 2004; 110:2618–2626. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000146819.43235.A9LinkGoogle Scholar
McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, Rouleau JL, Shi VC, Solomon SD, Swedberg K,; PARADIGM-HF Investigators and Committees. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.N Engl J Med. 2014; 371:993–1004. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409077CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hsich EM, Piña IL. Heart failure in women: a need for prospective data.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54:491–498. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.066CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Rossello X, Ariti C, Pocock SJ, Ferreira JP, Girerd N, McMurray JJV, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Pitt B, Zannad F. Impact of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction: an individual patient-level meta-analysis of three randomized-controlled trials.Clin Res Cardiol. 2019; 108:477–486. doi: 10.1007/s00392-018-1378-0CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Santema BT, Ouwerkerk W, Tromp J, Sama IE, Ravera A, Regitz-Zagrosek V, Hillege H, Samani NJ, Zannad F, Dickstein K,; ASIAN-HF investigators. Identifying optimal doses of heart failure medications in men compared with women: a prospective, observational, cohort study.Lancet. 2019; 394:1254–1263. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31792-1CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Gan L, Langenickel T, Petruck J, Kode K, Rajman I, Chandra P, Zhou W, Rebello S, Sunkara G. Effects of age and sex on the pharmacokinetics of LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor.J Clin Pharmacol. 2016; 56:78–86. doi: 10.1002/jcph.571CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar